Ambar argues against according too much importance to regional languages and explains that, above everything else, languages should be valued for their reach and practical importance in a globalized world.
When it comes to language, numbers are everything. Knowledge of a language allows one to be a member of a communication network consisting of people who know that language. The more languages you know, the more people you can communicate with. However, the effort put into learning a new language must be commensurate with the benefits accrued. In other words, forcing one to spend equal time on English, Hindi and Kannada lessons in school is a completely daft idea.
Interesting read.
Update: Title and link-text corrected: ‘Regional Languages’ was inadvertantly mentioned as regionalism.
Comments
3 comments. Leave your comment »
Sibin
Dec 9th, 2005 at 1:48 pm | #
My take on a related topic - to do with regional languages and pride in their culture, using malayalam as an example:
http://sibin.blogspot.com/2005/11/malayalam-literaturecinema.html
Thalassa
Dec 9th, 2005 at 2:41 pm | #
Bah! Utilitarian arguments for learning languages are extremely limiting and militate against linguistic diversity. Language skills are not a finite set that are exhausted with each additional language to learn.
Ambar
Dec 11th, 2005 at 2:06 am | #
Thalassa, why do you assume that linguistic diversity is inherently desirable? Language skills may not be finite, but the time one has to acquire any knowledge is fatally finite.